Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems v. Online Networks  ONLINE v. FAT KEE: complaint for sum of money R45 petition fatally detective for FAT KEE’s failure to
International, Inc. after FAT KEE failed to pay purchase price for the attach TSN of the RTC proceedings? NO
computers sold to it by ONLINE
 RTC: Dismissed complaint (in favor of FAT KEE) Given that the TSN of the proceedings before the RTC forms
o MR (by ONLINE) denied part of the records of the instant case, the failure of FAT KEE
 CA (via NoA): reversed RTC (in favor of ONLINE) to attach the relevant portions of the TSN was already cured
o MR (by FAT KEE) denied by the subsequent elevation of the case records to this Court.
 Pet. For Review on Certiorari (R45)
Procedural rules should be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective and assist the parties in obtaining
just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action or proceeding.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what


the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law,
the same must not involve an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them.

Tay Chun Suy v. CA  Sta. Clara Lumber (SCLC) obtained a loan from DBP, wc SCHI, lessee of the vessel, is an entity separate from SCLC, and
was secured by a mortgage on SCLC’s vessel. Failed to was not a party to the case filed by petitioner against the
pay loan, thus mortgage was foreclosed. latter.16 Yet, SCHI was furnished, on a Saturday, copy of the
 Auction sale  sold vessel to DBP; however, DBP did notice of auction sale of MV Sta. Clara I. Sta. Clara Lumber
not register w the PHL Coast Guard the mortgage, Co., Inc., which was the proper party, does not appear to have
neither the foreclosure nor the auction sale. been notified. Upon being informed of the auction sale,
 SC Housing Industries (SCHI) and DBP entered into a counsel for SCHI immediately went to the auction site and
Lease/Purchase Agreement, wc provided that DBP requested that the sale be reset that day on the ground that
should lease some of SCLC’s properties, including the SCLC was no longer the owner of the vessel. To support this
vessel, to SCLI and transfer actual ownership upon full claim, the Manager of SCHI hurriedly left for her office to
payment secure a copy of the certificate of sale in favor of DBP as this
was demanded by the sheriff.
 SCLC caused the levy and attachment of the same vessel
in order to satisfy a judgment rendered in RTC Davao in
Petitioner estopped from denying knowledge of prior
civil case, Tay Chun Suy v. SCLC || SCLI was the holder
claim of DBP to the vessel? YES.
of the coastwise license of the vessel
Asserts he never admitted that he knew of DBP’s prior
 Execution sale  DBP was the owner, not SCLC; acquisition at the time of execution sale on 16 Jul 1986. Never
Sheriff still proceeded w the sale challenged this particular ruling in his appeal to the CA. Hence,
cannot be allowed to ventilate it now in this proceeding. Points
of law, theories, issues and arguments not adequately

1
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

 Vessel again levied upon and attached by virtue of a brought to the attention of the trial court need not be, and
writ of attachment by RTC Cebu in civil case Philippine ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing Court as
Trigon v. SCHI they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
 Upon being informed of execution sale, DBP filed a
complaint for annulment of the execution sale, recovery Factual findings of the trial court, as well as those of the
of possession, damages and AF w prayer for restraining Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and respect.
order and preliminary injunction
o MTD (by Tan Chun Suy): denied, but granted
DBP’s prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction
o MR on denial: denied
 CA: petition for certiorari and mandamus with
prohibition
 SC: Pet. For Review on Certiorari (R45)
 TC issued decision wc declared DBP was the lawful
owner and public auction sale was void
o CA: dismissed appeal
o MR on dismissal: denied

Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries  Excelsa obtained a loan from Producers Bank in the form Pet. For certiorari should have been immediately
of a bill discounted and secured credit accommodation of dismissed bc there was a remedy (MR and appeal)
P200K secured by a REM over real estate properties available to Excelsa? YES.
registered in the Excelsa’s name. Also secured loans that
might be extended in the future by Producers to Excelsa. Respondent herein committed a procedural blunder when it
 Excelsa thereafter applied for a credit export advance filed a separate petition for certiorari before the CA, because
with Producers Bank supported by a LoC issued by a when the two cases were consolidated and a joint decision was
Korean Bank through BPI  approved rendered, the cases lost their identities; and a petition for
 Korean buyer, however, refused to pay the export certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a decision granting
documents prompting petitioner to demand from the issuance of a writ of possession.
respondent the payment of the peso equivalent of said
export documents together with its due and unpaid loans. The remedy of a party from the trial court’s order granting the
issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside
 Producers Bank: EJF of the REM; emerged as highest
the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved
bidder (failed to redeem, thus consolidated in favor of
party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said
Producers Bank)
petition.
 Excelsa @ RTC: Annulment of EJF with prayer for
preliminary injunction and damages A special civil action for certiorari could be availed of only if a
o Producers Bank: petition for the issuance of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
writ of possession functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
o RTC: VALID EJF and ordered the issuance of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
writ of possession lack or excess of jurisdiction; and if there is no appeal or any
 Excelsa: both assailing RTC Decision other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
1. Ordinary appeal to CA of law. It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases that
2. SCA for certiorari to CA the remedy of a party from the trial court’s order granting the
 CA 1: reversed and set aside RTC decision decaling the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside
EJF as invalid and annulling the issuance of the writ of the sale and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved
possession party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said
 CA 2: reversed RTC petition. When a writ of possession had already been issued as

2
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

in this case, the proper remedy is an appeal and not a petition


for certiorari. To be sure, the trial court’s order granting the
writ of possession is final. The soundness of the order granting
the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, with respect to
which the remedy of the party aggrieved is ordinary appeal. As
respondent availed of the wrong remedy, the appellate court
erred in not dismissing outright the petition for certiorari.

Union Bank v. People  Tomas charged for perjury for making a false narration in Certificate against forum shopping can be made either by a
CAFS. statement under oath in the complaint or initiatory pleading
 Union Bank’s 2 complaints for sum of money with prayer asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a sworn certification
for writ of replevin vs. Spouses Tamondong and a John annexed to the complaint or initiatory pleading.
Doe
o Complaint 1 @ RTC Pasay The Certificate against Forum Shopping can be made either by
o Complaint 2 @ MeTC Pasay a statement under oath in the complaint or initiatory pleading
 Tomas executed and signed CAFS for both complaints. asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a sworn certification
annexed to the complaint or initiatory pleading. In both
 MTQ (g: lack of jurisdiction and facts charged do not
instances, the affiant is required to execute a statement under
constitute an offense)
oath before a duly commissioned notary public or any
o MeTC Makati (where the CAFS was
competent person authorized to administer oath that:
subscribed): DENIED
(a) he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed
 Union Bank and Tomas @RTC Makati: Petition for any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
certiorari to annul and set aside MeTC Makati orders on quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge,
the ground of grave abuse of discretion no such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and
(c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall
report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein
his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.

In relation to the crime of perjury, the material matter in a


Certificate against Forum Shopping is the truth of the required
declarations which is designed to guard against litigants
pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora.

Steelcase, Inc v. International Selections, Inc.  Dealership agreement bw Steelcase and DISI Steelcase doing business in the PHL? NO (QoF)
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45  Steelcase v. DISI: complaint for sum of money alleging
assailing the March 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals that DISI had an unpaid account of $600,000 [T]he appointment of a distributor in the Philippines is not
(CA) which affirmed the May 29, 2000 Order2 of the Regional o DISI’s compulsory counterclaim sought sufficient to constitute doing business unless it is under the full
Trial Court, Branch 60, Makati City (RTC), dismissing the issuance of TRO, dismissal, and payment of control of the foreign corporation. On the other hand, if the
complaint for sum of money in Civil Case No. 99-122 entitled damages distributor is an independent entity which buys and distributes
“Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections, Inc.”  Steelcase products, other than those of the foreign corporation, for its
o Motion to Admit Amended Complaint own name and its own account, the latter cannot be considered
Resolution o Motion to Admit SECOND Amended to be doing business in the Philippines. Here, DISI was an
The March 31, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Complaint independent contractor which sold Steelcase products in its
March 23, 2006 Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET own name and for its own account. As a result, Steelcase

3
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

ASIDE. The dismissal order of the Regional Trial Court dated  RTC: dismissed complaint (no license, but doing cannot be considered to be doing business in
November 15, 1999 is set aside. Steelcase’s Second Amended business; no right to seek redress), granted TRO, denied the Philippines by its act of appointing a distributor as it falls
Complaint is ordered ADMITTED. The case is REMANDED amendment of complaint under one of the exceptions under R.A. No. 7042.
to the RTC for appropriate action. o MR denied
 Appeal to CA: affirmed RTC
o MR: denied by CA

Estores v. Supangan  Conditional deed of sale bw Estores and Sps Supangan, Proper imposition of interest and AF? YES (QoL)
Petition for Review filed under Rule 45. but after 7 years Estores still failed to transfer ownership
 Sps Supangan demanded return of P3.5M w/in 15 days Interest may be imposed even in the absence of
Resolution from receipt  Estores promised to return money within stipulation in the contract. Contract involved in the case
The Petition for Review is DENIED. The May 12, 2006 120 days  Sps Supangan agreed, but imposed an interest is not a loan, but a conditional deed of sale – can be
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 83123 is of 12% annually  Estores still failed to return money considered as a forbearance of money which requires 12%.
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the rate of interest Article 2210 of the Civil Code expressly provides that
 Sps Supangan @ RTC: complaint for sum of money
shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum, computed from “[i]nterest may, in the discretion of the court, be allowed upon
o RTC: entitled to interest, but only at 6% per
September 27, 2000 until fully satisfied. The award of attorney’s damages awarded for breach of contract.” In this case, there
annum + AF
fees is further reduced to P50,000.00. is no question that petitioner is legally obligated to return
 CA on appeal the P3.5 million because of her failure to fulfill the obligation
o Issue: whether it is proper to impose interest under the Conditional Deed of Sale, despite
for an obli that does not involve a loan or demand. Petitioner enjoyed the use of the money from the
forbearance of money in the absence of time it was given to her until now. Thus, she is already in
stipulation of the parties default of her obligation from the date of demand.
o Affirmed RTC that interest should start on
date of formal demand Forbearance is defined as a “contractual obligation of lender
or creditor to refrain during a given period of time, from
requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or debt then
due and payable.” This definition describes a loan where a
debtor is given a period within which to pay a loan or debt. In
such case, “forbearance of money, goods or credits” will have
no distinct definition from a loan. We believe however, that
the phrase “forbearance of money, goods or credits” is meant
to have a separate meaning from a loan, otherwise there would
have been no need to add that phrase as a loan is already
sufficiently defined in the Civil Code.

Forbearance of money, goods or credits should therefore


refer to arrangements other than loan agreements, where a
person acquiesces to the temporary use of his money, goods or
credits pending happening of certain events or fulfillment of
certain conditions.

In this case, the respondent-spouses parted with their money


even before the conditions were fulfilled. They have therefore
allowed or granted forbearance to the seller (petitioner) to use
their money pending fulfillment of the conditions. They were
deprived of the use of their money for the period pending
fulfillment of the conditions and when those conditions were
breached, they are entitled not only to the return of the

4
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

principal amount paid, but also to compensation for the use of


their money. And the compensation for the use of their
money, absent any stipulation, should be the same rate of legal
interest applicable to a loan since the use or deprivation of
funds is similar to a loan.

Dalton v. FGR Realty and Development Corp.  Dayrit owned a parcel of land located in Cebu City. CA erred in ruling that Dalton failed to pay rent? NO.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Dalton and Sasam, et al. leased portions of the property.
Rules of Court. The petition challenges the 9 November 2005  Dayrit sold the property to FGR. Both stopped accepting Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that petitions
Decision and 10 April 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals rental payments bc they wanted to terminate the lease for review on certiorari “shall raise only questions of law which
in CA-G.R. CV No. 76536. The Court of Appeals affirmed the agreements with Dalton and Sasam, et al. must be distinctly set forth.” Whether Dalton failed to pay
26 February 2002 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),  Dalton and Sasam, et al consigned the rental payments rent is a question of fact. It is not reviewable.
Judicial Region 7, Branch 13, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB with the RTC, but failed to notify Dayrit and FGR about
4218. the consignation. The factual findings of the lower courts are binding on the
Court. The exceptions to this rule are
 Dayrit and FGR withdrew the rental payments, but
Resolution (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion;
reserved the right to question the validity of the
The Court DENIES the petition. The Court AFFIRMS the 9 (2) when the findings are grounded on speculation;
consignation.
November 2005 Decision and 10 April 2006 Resolution of the (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76536.  Compromise agreement entered into and was agreed (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a
upon to abandon all claims against each other. misapprehension of facts;
 Dalton did not enter into compromise agreement (5) when the factual findings are conflicting;
 RTC: dismissed complaint and ordered Dalton to vacate (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the
the property. case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the
 Appeal to CA: affirmed RTC parties;
(7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts
which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion;
(8) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed
by the respondent; and

5
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

(9) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on


the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence
on record.

Dalton did not show that any of these circumstances is present.

PNB v. Perez  Sps Perez obtained a revolving credit line from PNB Petition for certiorari is proper remedy? YES
Cauayan secured by CMs over palay stocks inventory and
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 187640 is REMs over real properties. Here, the trial court failed to issue a proper notice of pre-trial
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in  Default on financial obligations  PNB: EJF to PNB. Thus, it committed grave abuse of discretion when it
CA-G.R. SP No. 96534 dated October 23, 2008 is AFFIRMED proceedings issued the Order dated March 8, 2006 allowing Spouses Perez
with the MODIFICATION that the July 5, 2006 Decision of  Sps Perez filed an Amended Complaint for Release or to present their evidence ex-parte.
the Regional Trial Court of Isabela in Civil Case No. 20-1155 Discharge of Mortgaged Properties, Breach of Contract,
is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, the titles issued to Spouses Declaration of Correct Amount of Obligation, Considering that the trial court’s action in issuing such order
Angelito Perez and Jocelyn Perez by virtue of the aforesaid Injunction, Damages, Annulment of Sheriff’s Notice of constituted grave abuse of its discretion, PNB availed of the
August 17, 2006 Order and all derivative titles emanating Extra-Judicial Sale, with a Prayer for the Issuance of a proper remedy when it filed a petition for certiorari with the
thereon are cancelled and declared null and void and directing Preliminary Mandatory Injunctive Writ and a CA.
the Register of Deeds of Isabela to issue new certificates of title Temporary Restraining Order (denied bc absent)
in the name of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to replace Nevertheless, even with the existence of the remedy of appeal,
 Pre-trial conference: Absent [Motion for Postponement
the fourteen (14) titles previously issued to Spouses Angelito this Court has, in certain cases, allowed a writ of certiorari
DENIED]
and Jocelyn Perez pursuant to the August 17, 2006 Order and where the order complained of is a patent nullity. In the instant
o MR denied
for Spouses Angelito and Jocelyn Perez to pay to PNB the case, the lack of notice of pre-trial rendered all subsequent
o Second MR denied
amount of PhP 2,676,140.70 representing the amount proceedings null and void. Hence, the CA was correct in not
garnished from PNB’s account with Equitable PCI Bank  NoA denied for being filed out of time dismissing the petition for certiorari.
(EPCIB) by virtue of the August 15, 2006 Writ of Execution o MR denied
issued pursuant to the July 5, 2006 Decision.  Appeal to CA: denied Evidently, the argument that the petition for certiorari is
o MR: granted (g: higher interest of substantial precluded by the motion for reconsideration and the petition
justice) for relief from judgment filed before the trial court is
 Case remanded to RTC, but PNB failed to receive copy untenable.
and was unable to attend; Sps Perez allowed to adduce
evidence and considered the hearing as a pre-trial Argument that subject properties were sold to certain
conference innocent purchasers for value will stand? NO. Such
o PNB MR: denied w/o stating reason allegation is a QoF, not a QoL.
o RTC: decided in favor of Sps Perez
o PNB MR, but counsel failed to send copy to The issues that can be raised in a petition for review on
TC: denied certiorari under Rule 45 are limited only to questions of law.
 RTC: issued Writ of Execution The test of whether the question is one of law or of fact is
o PNB Pet. For Relief from Judgment/Order of whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised
Execution w prayer for issuance of writ of without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it
preliminary injunction: denied prayer for is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.
preliminary injunction + annulled certificates
of title issued to PNB It is settled that matters not raised in the trial court or lower
 PNB Pet. For Certiorari (with Prayer for the Issuance of courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. “They must
an Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of be raised seasonably in the proceedings before the lower courts.
Preliminary Injunction) + filed a Supplement to the Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed
Petition for Certiorari (with Urgent Prayer for the by the parties; consequently, issues not raised before the trial
Issuance of an Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Spouses
Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction)13 and an Urgent

6
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

Motion for the Issuance of an Ex-Parte Temporary Perez never raised this issue before the CA. Hence, they cannot
Restraining Order with Supplement to Petition @ CA: raise it before this Court now.
granted and issued TRO
 Despite issuance of TRO, Sps Perez were able to garnish
P2.6M from PNB’s account on the same date TRO was
issued
 PNB @ CA: Supplemental Petition for Certiorari (with
Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of an Ex-Parte Writ of
Preliminary Injunction) seeking additional reliefs for the
return or reinstatement of the garnished amount and/or
the appointment of a receiver over the said funds to
administer and preserve the same pending the final
disposition of the case  GRANTED (the sending of a
notice of pre-trial is mandatory and that the Order dated
March 8, 2006 issued by the trial court cannot be
considered as such. Therefore, the CA held that all orders
issued subsequent to the said order are, likewise, null and
void.); however, failed to address PNB’s prayer for
issuance of writ of mandatory injunction and
return/reinstatement
o PNB: Motion for Clarificatory Order 
denied
o Sps Perez: MR  denied
 PNB and Sps Perez filed their separate petitions with SC
assailing both the decision and resolution of CA.
 Spouses Perez argue that the filing of a petition for
certiorari by PNB before the CA was improper for two
reasons: (a) a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for
a lost appeal; and (b) there were other pending petitions
for relief from judgment and a motion for reconsideration
with the lower court.

7
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

RGM Industries v. United Pacific Capital Corp.  UCPC granted a P30M short-term credit facility in favor The issue on partial payments and their application to the
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of of RGM. outstanding balance involves a calibration of the evidence
the Rules of Court, seeking to annul and set aside the Decision  RGM failed to satisfy PNs as they fell due. presented, hence, factual in nature and not reviewable in the
dated July 23, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.  RGM issued a consolidated PN in favor UCPC in the petition at bar. Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
CV No. 87727 which affirmed with modification the Decision principal amount of P27M++ for a term of 14 days. may be brought only on questions of law, not on questions of
dated April 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch Stipulated interest was 32%. In case of default, penalty fact.
147 of Makati City, in Civil Case No. 99-1888, ordering RGM charge of 8% per month  failed to satisfy  asked for
Industries, Inc. (petitioner) to pay its obligation to United restructuring of the loan Nevertheless, we are convinced that the courts a quo, in
Pacific Capital Corporation (respondent). The RTC’s judgment concluding the outstanding balance of the petitioner, have both
 UCPC @ RTC: complaint for collection of sum of money
was modified as to the interest rates and penalty charges carefully considered and appreciated the evidence of partial
o RGM claimed that the agreed interest rate was
imposed. Likewise assailed is the CA’s Resolution dated payments adduced. As found by the CA, the payments made
fixed at 15.5% per annum and not the varying
December 14, 2010 denying the petitioner’s motion for by the petitioner before the complaint was filed were duly
interest rates imposed by the respondent
reconsideration. deducted from the outstanding balance; while the payments
which reached as high as 40% per annum
made during the pendency of the case were applied to the due
(assertion of unilateral imposition of increased
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Petition and outstanding penalty charges.
interest rates)
is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated July 23,
2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87727 is  RTC: in favor of UCPC However, pursuant to Bank of the Philippine Islands, Inc. v.
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that: (1) the penalty  CA: affirmed RTC but modified the interest rates and Yu, we deem it proper to further reduce the penalty charge
charge is reduced to 1% per month or 12% per annum; and (2) penalty charges imposed. decreed by the CA from 2% per month to 1% per month or
the attorney’s fees is reduced to 1% of the total unpaid o RGM MR bc the modified interest rates and 12% per annum in view of the following factors: (1) respondent
obligation. penalty charges are still exorbitant and failed has already received P7,504,522.27 in penalty charges, and (2)
to appreciate partial payments already made: the loan extended to respondent was a short-term credit
DENIED facility.

Sarona v. NLRC  On June 20, 2003, the petitioner, who was hired by Sarona barred from exercising his right to elevate CA
Sceptre as a security guard sometime in April 1976, was decision to SC? NO. Receipt of the proceeds of the NLRC
asked by Karen Therese Tan (Karen), Sceptre’s award is qualified and without prejudice to the CA’s resolution
Operation Manager, to submit a resignation letter as the of his pet. for certiorari.
same was supposedly required for applying for a position
at Royale. The petitioner was also asked to fill up Royale’s The prevailing party’s receipt of the full amount of the
employment application form, which was handed to him judgment award pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the
by Royale’s General Manager, respondent Cesar Antonio labor arbiter does not close or terminate the case if such receipt
Tan II (Cesar). is qualified as without prejudice to the outcome of the petition
 After several weeks of being in floating status, Royale’s for certiorari pending with the CA.
Security Officer, Martin Gono (Martin), assigned the
petitioner at Highlight Metal Craft, Inc. (Highlight Metal) The finality of the NLRC’s decision does not preclude the filing
from July 29, 2003 to August 8, 2003. Thereafter, the of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
petitioner was transferred and assigned to Wide Wide That the NLRC issues an entry of judgment after the lapse of
World Express, Inc. (WWWE, Inc.). ten (10) days from the parties’ receipt of its decision will only
 On September 17, 2003, the petitioner was informed that give rise to the prevailing party’s right to move for the
his assignment at WWWE, Inc. had been withdrawn execution thereof but will not prevent the CA from taking
because Royale had allegedly been replaced by another cognizance of a petition for certiorari on jurisdictional and due
security agency. The petitioner, however, shortly process considerations. In turn, the decision rendered by the
discovered thereafter that Royale was never replaced as CA on a petition for certiorari may be appealed to this Court
WWWE, Inc.’s security agency. When he placed a call at by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
WWWE, Inc., he learned that his fellow security guard the Rules of Court. Under Section 5, Article VIII of the
was not relieved from his post. Constitution, this Court has the power to “review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or

8
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

 On September 21, 2003, the petitioner was once again the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
assigned at Highlight Metal, albeit for a short period from lower courts in x x x all cases in which only an error or question
September 22, 2003 to September 30, 2003. of law is involved.” Consistent with this constitutional
Subsequently, when the petitioner reported at Royale’s mandate, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy of
office on October 1, 2003, Martin informed him that he an appeal by certiorari from decisions, final orders or
would no longer be given any assignment per the resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature
instructions of Aida Sabalones-Tan (Aida), general of the action or proceedings involved, which would be but a
manager of Sceptre. This prompted him to file a continuation of the appellate process over the original case.
complaint for illegal dismissal on October 4, 2003. Since an appeal to this Court is not an original and independent
action but a continuation of the proceedings before the CA,
the filing of a petition for review under Rule 45 cannot be
barred by the finality of the NLRC’s decision in the same way
that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA cannot.

Furthermore, if the NLRC’s decision or resolution was


reversed and set aside for being issued with grave abuse of
discretion by way of a petition for certiorari to the CA or to
this Court by way of an appeal from the decision of the CA, it
is considered void ab initio and, thus, had never become final
and executory.


May SC resolve the issue of whether one corporation is a


mere alter ego of another entity or whether the corporate
fiction was invoked for fraudulent or malevolent ends?
YES.

As a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and a petition


for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
must exclusively raise questions of law. Moreover, if factual
findings of the NLRC and the LA have been affirmed by the
CA, this Court accords them the respect and finality they
deserve. It is well-settled and oft-repeated that findings of fact
of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but
finality when affirmed by the CA. Nevertheless, this Court will
not hesitate to deviate from what are clearly procedural
guidelines and disturb and strike down the findings of the CA
and those of the labor tribunals if there is a showing that they
are unsupported by the evidence on record or there was a
patent misappreciation of facts. Indeed, that the impugned
decision of the CA is consistent with the findings of the labor
tribunals does not per se conclusively demonstrate the
correctness thereof. By way of exception to the general rule,
this Court will scrutinize the facts if only to rectify the prejudice
and injustice resulting from an incorrect assessment of the
evidence presented.

9
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

May a resolution of an issue that has supposedly become


final and executory as the petitioner only raised it in his
reply to the respondents’ appeal be revisited by the
appellate court? YES, if such is necessary for a just disposition
of the case.

The NLRC refused to disturb LA Gutierrez’s denial of the


petitioner’s plea to pierce Royale’s corporate veil as the
petitioner did not appeal any portion of LA Gutierrez’s May
11, 2005 Decision.

Under Section 4(c), Rule VI of the NLRC Rules, the NLRC


shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the issues that
were elevated on appeal. The NLRC, while not totally bound
by technical rules of procedure, is not licensed to disregard and
violate the implementing rules it implemented. Nonetheless,
technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of
equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of
the parties. Technical rules are not binding in labor cases and
are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental
to the working man. This Court may choose not to encumber
itself with technicalities and limitations consequent to
procedural rules if such will only serve as a hindrance to its duty
to decide cases judiciously and in a manner that would put an
end with finality to all existing conflicts between the parties.

Sta. Maria v. CA  Sps Fajardo v. Sps Sta Maria for the establishment of an Questions of fact? YES
This is an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the easement of right of way. Assigned errors 1, 2, and 4 involve questions of fact.
decision1 of 18 December 1996 of the Court of Appeals in  Sps Fajardo allege that their lot is surrounded by 1 - whether or not a compulsory easement of right of way can
CA-G.R. CV No. 48473, which affirmed with modification the properties belonging to other persons, including those of be established in the light of the doctrine laid down by the SC
30 June 1994 Decision2 of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Sps Sta Maria’s; bc no adequate outlet to the prov’l road, in Costabella Corporation vs. CA which held that [for] the
Court of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 77-M-92 granting the easement either of Sps Maria’s properties wc are directly failure of private respondents to show that the isolation of their
private respondents a right of way through the property of the abutting the provincial road is most convenient property was not due to their personal or their
petitioners.  Sps Sta Maria MTD: denied predecessors­in­interest’s own acts, they are not entitled to a
compulsory easement of right of way.
 Sps Sta Maria NoA to the SC denying their MTD under
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED 2 - whether or not a compulsory right of way can be granted to
R45: denied for lack of merit
and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is private respondents who have two other existing passage ways
AFFIRMED in toto.  Sps Sta Maria pet. for review on certiorari of LC’s order: other than that of petitioners and an alternative vacant lot
denied for failure to comply w SC Circulars fronting the provincial road also adjacent to private
o MR denied w finality respondents’ property, which can be used in going to and from
 RTC: granted easement private respondents’ property.
 Sps Sta Maria Appeal w CA: affirmed RTC, but modified 4 – CA seriously erred in holding that private respondents have
the property valuation by increasing it no adequate outlet to a public highway which inference drawn
 Sps Sta Maria Pet. for Review on Certiorari from facts was manifestly mistaken

Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases


brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law. Findings

10
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

of fact of the latter are conclusive, except in the following


instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of
fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court
of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the
appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts
set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when
the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.

All told, the findings of fact of both courts satisfied the


following requirements for an estate to be entitled to a
compulsory servitude of right of way under the Civil Code

Republic v. Ortigas  Respondent is the owner of a parcel of land in Pasig CA erred in denying Republic’s appeal based on
City. Upon the request of the Department of Public technicalities? NO
Works and Highways (DPWH), respondent caused the
segregation of its property into five lots and reserved one The sole issue raised by petitioner Republic of the Philippines
portion for road widening for the C-5 flyover to the Court of Appeals is whether respondent Ortigas’
project. The C-5-Ortigas Avenue flyover was completed property should be conveyed to it only by donation, in
in 1999, utilizing only 396 square meters of the 1,445- accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
square-meter allotment for the project. This question involves the interpretation and application of the
 Consequently, respondent further subdivided the lot into provision. It does not require the Court of Appeals to examine
the portion actually used for road widening, and the the truth or falsity of the facts presented. Neither does it invite
unutilized portion, and filed with the Regional Trial Court a review of the evidence. The issue raised before the Court of
(RTC) of Pasig a petition for authority to sell to the Appeals was, therefore, a question purely of law. The proper
government the portion of the lot actually used for the mode of appeal is through a petition for review under Rule 45.
road widening. Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the
 The RTC issued an order authorizing the sale but appeal on this ground.
petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed an opposition, Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals
alleging that respondent Ortigas’ property can only be taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals
conveyed by way of donation to the government, citing raising only pure questions of law are not reviewable by the
Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known Court of Appeals. In which case, the appeal shall not be
as the Property Registration Decree. transferred to the appropriate court. Instead, it shall be
dismissed outright. Appeals from the decisions of the Regional
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was
Trial Court, raising purely questions of law must, in all cases,
denied by the RTC.
be taken to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on
 Petitioner’s appeal was also dismissed by the Court of certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. An appeal by notice of
Appeals. appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals is

11
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

proper if the appellant raises questions of fact or both


questions of fact and questions of law.

There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as


to what law shall be applied on a given set of facts. Questions
of law do “not involve an examination of the probative value
of the evidence presented.” Its resolution rests solely on the
application of a law given the circumstances. There is a
question of fact when the court is required to examine the truth
or falsity of the facts presented. A question of fact “invites a
review of the evidence.”

The trial court’s order denying petitioner Republic of the Philippines’


motion for reconsideration of the decision granting respondent Ortigas the
authority to sell its property to the government was not an interlocutory
order because it completely disposed of a particular matter. An appeal from
it would not cause delay in the administration of justice. Petitioner Republic
of the Philippines’ appeal to the Court of Appeals, however, was properly
dismissed because the former used the wrong mode of appeal.

Orders denying motions for reconsideration are not always


interlocutory orders. A motion for reconsideration may be
considered a final decision, subject to an appeal, if “it puts an
end to a particular matter,” leaving the court with nothing else
to do but to execute the decision. “An appeal from an order
denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal
of a complaint is effectively an appeal of the order of dismissal
itself.” It is an appeal from a final decision or order. The trial
court’s order denying petitioner Republic of the Philippines’
motion for reconsideration of the decision granting respondent
Ortigas the authority to sell its property to the government was
not an interlocutory order because it completely disposed of a
particular matter. An appeal from it would not cause delay in
the administration of justice. Petitioner Republic of the
Philippines’ appeal to the Court of Appeals, however, was
properly dismissed because the former used the wrong mode
of appeal.

Altres v. Empleo Iligan Mayor Quijano advised CSC of its variou career Defect in the verification and CAFS? NO.
Assailed via petition for review on certiorari are the Decision positions in the city government, of which the latter proceeded
dated February 2, 2007 and Order dated October 22, 2007 of its publication. Petitioners and other applicants submitted their Court held that in the present case, the signing of the
Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, applications for the different positions where they felt verification by only 11 out of the 59 petitioners already
which denied petitioners’ petition for mandamus praying for a qualified. sufficiently assures the Court that the allegations in the pleading
writ commanding the city accountant of Iligan, Camilo G. are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or
Empleo (Empleo), or his successor in office, to issue a Toward the end of his term, Mayor Quijano issued a matter of speculation; that the pleading is filed in good faith;
certification of availability of funds in connection with their appointments to petitioners. and that the signatories are unquestionably real parties-in-
appointments, issued by then Iligan City Mayor Franklin M. interest who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief
to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition.

12
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

Quijano (Mayor Quijano), which were pending approval by the In the meantime, the Sangguniang Panglungsod issued
Civil Service Commission (CSC). requesting a suspension of action on the processing of Under justifiable circumstances, we have already allowed the
appointments to all vacant positions until the enactment of a relaxation of the requirements of verification and certification
WHEREFORE, the Court declares that it is Section 474(b)(4), new budget and another resolution holding transmission of all so that the ends of justice may be better served. Verification is
not Section 344, of the Local Government Code of 1991, appointments. simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in
which applies to the requirement of certification of availability the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
of funds under Section 1(e)(ii), Rule V of Civil Service Respondent city accountant Empleo did not issue a imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is
Commission Memorandum Circular Number 40, Series of certification as to availability of funds for the payment of filed in good faith; while the purpose of the aforesaid
1998. salaries and wages of petitioners, as required in the LGU certification is to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum
appointment. shopping.

The CSC Field Office for Lanao del Norte and Iligan City On the requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping,
disapproved the appointments issued to petitioners invariably the well-settled rule is that all the petitioners must sign the
due to lack of certification of availability of funds. certification of non-forum shopping. The reason for this is that
the persons who have signed the certification cannot be
Mayor Quijano appealed to CSC but later dismissed due to presumed to have the personal knowledge of the other
lacks a requirement prescribed by the civil service law, rules and non-signing petitioners with respect to the filing or non-filing
regulations, it would disapprove it without delving into the of any action or claim the same as or similar to the current
reasons why the requirement was not complied with. petition. The rule, however, admits of an exception and that is
when the petitioners show reasonable cause for failure to
RTC: personally sign the certification. The petitioners must be able
 RTC denied petitioners’ petition for mandamus. to convince the court that the outright dismissal of the petition
 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and is would defeat the administration of justice.
subsequently denied as well.
Verification v. CAFS [see De Leon]
SC:
 The Court, without giving due course to the
petition, required respondents to comment thereon
within ten (10) days from notice, and at the same
time required petitioners to comply, within the same
period, with the relevant provisions of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Petitioners filed a Compliance Report as required.
 Respondents duly filed their Comment, alleging
technical flaws in petitioners’ petition, to which
Comment petitioners filed their Reply in
compliance with the Court’s Resolution
 Respondents assail as defective the verification and
certification against forum shopping attached to the
petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of
the 59 petitioners, and no competent evidence of
identity was presented by the signing petitioners.
They thus move for the dismissal of the petition
 Petitioners, on the other hand, argue that they have
a justifiable cause for their inability to obtain the
signatures of the other petitioners as they could no

13
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

longer be contacted or are no longer interested in


pursuing the case.

Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.  Francisco v. Cebu Country Club @ RTC Cebu: action for Immediate dismissal? YES
declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title,
cancellation of certificates of title, and recovery of A. Petitioners’ breach of the hierarchy of courts by coming
property directly to the Court to appeal the assailed issuances of the RTC
o RTC: in favor of Cebu Country Club via petition for review on certiorari.
 Both parties appealed to CA
o CA: affirmed RTC The need to elevate the matter first to the CA is also
o Francisco MR: denied underscored by the reality that determining whether the
 Francisco appeal to SC: denied pet. for review, but set petitioners were real parties in interest entitled to bring this
aside CA and RTC decision appeal against the denial by the RTC of the OSG’s motion for
o Francisco MR: denied the issuance of a writ of execution was a mixed question of fact
and law. As such, the CA was in the better position to review
 Gov’t via OSG @ RTC: motion for issuance of writ of
and to determine. In that regard, the petitioners violate Section
execution (opposed by Cebu Country Club)
1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which demands
 Later on, the proceedings on the OSG’s motion for the that an appeal by petition for review on certiorari be limited to
issuance of a writ of execution at the instance of Cebu questions of law.
Country Club in deference to the on-going hearings being
conducted by the Committee on Natural Resources of the B. The second violation concerns the omission of a sworn
House of Representatives on a proposed bill to confirm certification against forum shopping from the petition for
the TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad review on certiorari. Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. Civil Procedure requires that the petition for review should
 The Congress ultimately enacted a law to validate the contain, among others, the sworn certification on the
TCTs and reconstituted titles covering the Banilad Friar undertakings provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule
Lands Estate in Cebu City. 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
o RTC: denied OSG’s motion
o Francisco MR questioning denial of OSG’s Only petitioner Tomas V. Alonso has executed and signed the
motion for issuance of writ of execution: sworn certification against forum shopping attached to the
denied petition. Although neither of his co-petitioners—Mercedes V.
o Upon being directed by the RTC to comment Alonso and Asuncion V. Alonso—has joined the certification,
on the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, Tomas did not present any written express authorization in his
the OSG manifested in writing that the favor authorizing him to sign the certification in their behalf.
Government was no longer seeking the The signing of the certification by only one of the petitioners
execution of the decision in G.R. No. 130876, could not be presumed to reflect the personal knowledge by
subject to its reservation to contest any other his co-petitioners of the filing or non-filing of any similar action
titles within the Banilad Friar Lands Estate or claim. Hence, the failure of Mercedes and Asuncion to sign
should clear evidence show such titles as and execute the certification along with Tomas warranted the
having been obtained through fraud.1 dismissal of their petition.
 Francisco pet. for review on certiorari

Mendoza v. CA  Sps Mendoza signed a PN of US$35k in favor of Sps Has the assailed decision become final and executory?
Asuncion. YES
 Sps Mendoza made $500 monthly payments for a period
of 10 months. Last payment made in Nov 1982. No valid service upon the public respondent of the motion for
 RTC: dismissed; no acceleration clause extension of time to file a petition for review and consequently,
the CA Decision has become final.

14
Rule 45 – Appellate Practice

 CA: in favor of Sps Asuncion ordering Sps Mendoza to


pay amount representing unpaid obligation of the latter Settled is the rule that no question will be entertained on appeal
together w legal interest until full amount is fully paid + unless it has been raised in the court below. Points of law,
10% AF [w benefit of acceleration clause] theories, issues and arguments not adequately brought to the
attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not
be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal. Basic considerations of due process
impel this rule.

Not disputed or denied by petitioner is the fact that there was


no valid service upon Respondent Court of Appeals of the
motion for extension of time to file the present petition.
Although the motion for extension carried a registry receipt
purportedly sent to Respondent Court of Appeals, the affidavit
of service attached thereto did not state whether the service
was effected by personal delivery, ordinary or registered mail.
That an entry of judgment was effected by the Court of
Appeals, on the other hand, indicates that there was no valid
service upon the public respondent of the motion for extension
of time to file a petition for review and that, consequently, the
CA Decision has become final. This is consistent with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by
public officers and offices. For this reason alone, the dismissal
of this petition is already in order.

15